Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD's A-Sync DMA Code Makes For Fast Performance

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SU-ASYNCDMAT84
    I assume Xonotic uses more modern OpenGL features, that are done in software or ignored now - hence low fps.
    You can prove me right or wrong, if you test OpenArena 0.8.5 (old GL) and compare how it scales to 0.8.8 (more modern GL).
    OpenArena 0.8.5 actually regressed slightly (from 154 to 147 fps, not enough to worry too much about).

    I'm downloading pts/etxreal at the moment, and we'll see how that works out. once that's done running and I've gotten some sleep, I'll upload an updated result set.

    Comment


    • #17
      Nice! Thanks for the benchmarks!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Veerappan View Post
        OpenArena 0.8.5 actually regressed slightly (from 154 to 147 fps, not enough to worry too much about)
        Is within acceptable fault rate. Yes, we have 24 fps for 0.8.8 and 150 fps for 0.8.5. Its ~84% speed loss. This would prove my point that OpenArena 0.8.8 relies on features that on MESA side cry for improvement.
        Compared to Catalyst ratings as baseline, if we watch 6950 fps drop, the ideal performance loss is only 75%(instead of 84%). Thats the amount of deficiency in MESA.

        This would mean, if GLSL and various other adjustments in MESA are done, your GPU would theoretically top at 37 fps for OA 0.8.8 profile.
        Of course, this is projected from current baseline OpenGL2.0 performance - if that improves too, fps would climb at same rate.
        For example, in link above, watch a fps "show" with Warsow 1.0. This game heavily uses shaders and they are bottlenecking to such a great degree, that under opensource 6570 (50% to catalyst) runs same to 6950 (15% to catalyst)!

        But hey, only 3 years ago, I had 5 fps in 0.8.5 using 4670...

        Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
        60% of what? What baseline are you using?
        Baseline is ....catalyst in high resolutions. Baseline is practical maximum, as achieved by catalyst.
        Last edited by crazycheese; 12-13-2012, 02:32 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          ET:XReal wouldn't run on this machine, so I'm calling it quits for now with this latest upload:

          http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...SU-ASYNCDMAT52

          If I feel really ambitious over the weekend, I'll install catalyst and get some comparative numbers.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
            Baseline is ....catalyst in high resolutions. Baseline is practical maximum, as achieved by catalyst.
            Where are you getting your Catalyst data?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
              Where are you getting your Catalyst data?
              lastest "vs" benchmarks, click on link in previous post. Catalyst still has big advantage when using OpenGL3+ with shading, but in other cases its average 60%, even up to 90% recently.

              Comment


              • #22
                I have tested GTX260SP216, using both nvidia proprietary and Kernel3.7+MESA9.1 (using Oibaf PPA).
                The results were not very favoring the radeon...

                The interesting thing, is that we have very similar machines (Athlon II x4 vs Phenom II x6 both 2.8 Ghz), same amount of RAM etc.

                Results: http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1...CRAZ-121221723

                Comment

                Working...
                X